Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:25:08AM +0000, coypu%sdf.org@localhost wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:19:59AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > Isn't the idea of blocking with preemption enabled bogus?

that should have been "disabled" of course.

> > 
> > So instead of disallowing migration with preemption disabled, KASSERT
> > in all blocking primitives that preemption is enabled and fix the fallout
> > at the call sites?
> 
> Is it now safe to use blocking functions under kpreempt_disable()? What
> about the single processor case?

Not sure I understand the first part.

The kasssert could be properly #ifdefed for non-preemption architectures
and test may be silent for single processor cases (but why would that
matter?)

Martin